Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE NO. 8)

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:40:49 -0500

Please see comments inline.

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna

Non-editorial comments associated with RFC3012bis:

Please post your comments with the appropriate issue number in the subject
line (instead of simply replying to this email).

-Chairs.

8. "   pending registration request list [7].  Also in this case, the
   Foreign Agent MUST reject any Registration Reply message coming from
   the Home Agent that does not also include the Challenge Extension
   with the same Challenge Value that was included in the Registration
   Request.  The Foreign Agent MUST send the rejected Registration"
   
   This MUST seems to imply that a FA implementing this specification
   is not allowed to interoperate with a HA which does not implement
   this specification. Did I get that right?

This portion is absolutely part of RFC3012 which has been a standard since
November
2000. Although, I agree with this point, However, it is too late too little.
This point MUST have been raised before RFC3012 became a standard.
If this issue created a backward compatibility with HAs which existed before
November 2000, then changing it now, WOULD creates a mega backward
compatibility with existing FAs.

The best argument is: Not many HAs have been deployed before November 2000. 
Therefore, it is much safer to keep the text as is.

Regards,
Ahmad